Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1990, before the WTO, trade protection cost U.S. consumers approximately $70 billion per year. Trade barriers hit the lowest income consumers the hardest because they have to spend a greater share of their paychecks on the everyday products most affected by hidden import taxes. I am referring to such things as clothes, shoes, and many food products. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the market access opportunities culminating in the Uruguay Round amount to ``the largest global tax cut in history.'' By the time the WTO agreements are fully implemented in 2005, the annual effect will be equal to an increase of $1,500 to $3,000 in purchasing power for the average American family of four. By giving American consumers more buying power with every dollar, the WTO helps to raise the living standards for America's families, especially low-income families. Moreover, as Americans buy more, the availability of low-cost imports has helped to ward off inflation. Holding down inflation helps to keep mortgages, car loans, credit card interest, and other credit expenses lower. Mr. Speaker, I think it is vital for our colleagues to pay attention to the discussion that is being held here today, to examine the evidence, and conclude to vote against H.J. Res. 90. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our colleagues that we are the biggest export nation on the face of this Earth. Every billion dollars in increased U.S. exports translates into roughly 15,000 to 20,000 new jobs here in the United States. And those new jobs that are trade- related jobs pay on average about 17 percent more than jobs simply for domestic consumption. In other words, trade is one of the biggest benefits economically this country has experienced. We are at a point because we have been at full employment for almost 5 years now where we are importing skilled labor, thousands of skilled workers, because of the shortage of workers we have in this country. And there has been some suggestion by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) that there may be 6 million illegal immigrants working in the United States that are filling those empty slots because we have no opportunities for any increased jobs. We are short of labor in this country, just like we are short of virtually everything else. Let me read a Statement of Administration Policy here for the Record: Though its origins date back more than 50 years, the WTO continues to be a critical forum for the United States to (1) assert and advance U.S. interests in the global economy; (2) lower trade barriers and promote new opportunity for American workers, firms, and farmers; (3) advance the rule of law; (4) promote economic stability and peace by giving nations stronger stakes in one another's prosperity and stability. If the United States did not participate in the WTO, we would (1) expose ourselves to discrimination by virtually all other major trading nations; (2) weaken our ability to get other countries to abide by trade commitments; (3) threaten U.S. competitiveness and living standards; (4) create uncertainty and risk in the U.S. and world economy. U.S. participation and leadership in the WTO is critical at this time. There are more than 30 nations, including some economies in transition, seeking to join the WTO, as well as a number of developing countries that are working to meet their WTO obligations. Withdrawal of congressional support for the multilateral system would send precisely the wrong message to these countries.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleague from Ohio that we have delegated responsibility on trade issues to our Committee on Ways and Means and, more specifically, the Subcommittee on Trade. That is not an unnatural way to proceed, because we still retain the option to negate anything we might want to do. The same principle, I might add, applies to WTO rulings. Any WTO ruling could be negated at any time by the United States. If we do not like it, we do not have to observe it. We will pay a price if we do not play the game according to the rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I include the letters I referred to for the Record as follows: Emergency Committee for American Trade, Washington, DC, June 7, 2000. Hon. Philip M. Crane, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing, as Chairman of the Emergency Committee for American Trade and Chairman of Cargill, Incorporated, to urge you to vote against. H.J. Res. 90, withdrawing congressional approval of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). Withdrawal of U.S. support for the WTO would undermine the tremendous growth and prosperity that the United States has achieved through the expansion of world trade--an expansion enabled by the WTO and the multilateral trading system. With 96 percent of the world's population and four-fifths of the world economy located outside U.S. borders, we cannot sustain economic growth here at home unless we have access to expanding opportunities in world markets. As documented in ECAT's 1998 groundbreaking study, Global Investments, American Returns, and its ``1999 Update,'' world economic expansion and integration have enabled American companies with global operations to make important contributions to the U.S. economy and standard of living that in many cases are greater than those of purely domestic firms. For the past two decades, American companies with global operations have accounted for over half of all U.S. research and development and over half of all U.S. exports. They also have undertaken the majority of total U.S. investment in physical capital in the manufacturing sector. In addition, American companies without global operations pay their workers 5 to 15 percent less than American companies with global operations. While American companies have sought opportunities in global markets, they have nearly three-fourths of their total employment in the United States. These American companies have provided an important source of new business opportunities in the United States, as the have purchased from U.S. suppliers over 90 percent of their intermediate inputs for their products, totaling $3 trillion in 1997. The foreign affiliates of American companies also have created significant new markets for U.S. companies, as foreign affiliates account for over 40 percent of U.S. exports. In addition, over 70 percent of the income from the foreign affiliates of American companies is repatriated, thereby promoting greater U.S. economic growth. The trade liberalization shaped by the WTO and its GATT predecessor has been the major engine of the global economic growth that is so vital to our prosperity as a nation. Since the founding of the multilateral trading system at the end of World War II, the world economy has grown six-fold, per capita income worldwide has tripled, and hundreds of millions of families around the globe have risen from poverty. The historic liberalization under the Uruguay Round Agreements provided significant new market access through substantial tariff cuts on agricultural and industrial products, reductions in agricultural trade barriers, limits on the use of agricultural export subsidies, and the creation of new disciplines to open up global markets to services providers. This liberalization is expected to produce a $230 billion increase in world GDP and a $745 billion increase in world trade by 2005. This means an additional annual $100 to $200 billion in purchasing power for consumers worldwide. Since the Uruguay Round, the WTO has helped to pave the way for continued growth in the 21st century by producing an information technology agreement cutting tariffs on $600 billion worth of trade in computers and other high-tech goods, a financial services agreement covering $60 trillion in financial transactions, and a telecommunications agreement opening up 95 percent of the world's telecommunications markets by eliminating monopolies and establishing pro- competitive regulatory principles. The 1998 commitment among WTO members to maintain ``duty-free cyberspace'' also has laid the foundation for world economic growth in new areas by ensuring the unhindered development of electronic commerce as a means to promote trade. For the United States, this global economic growth has helped the U.S. economy grow from $7 trillion in 1992 to over $9 trillion last year. U.S. unemployment levels are now at their lowest point in 30 years, and U.S. poverty rates are the lowest in two decades. The WTO has helped to ensure that this growth is sustained even in times of economic instability as evidenced by the fact that U.S. exports of goods and services, even with the disruption of the Asian financial crisis, have grown by 55 percent since 1992 to a record total of nearly $959 billion last year. WTO membership has grown since 1986 from 90 members to 136 members in April of this year, with 30 other countries applying for membership. As a result, the WTO is becoming a truly global system of trade rules in which WTO disciplines have become a key element not only in developed nations, but also in emerging economies in Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Achieving China's entry into the WTO and its integration into the rules-based world trading system is vital to this process and will help to ensure that China, the largest emerging economy in the world, develops its economy in accordance with WTO rules. China's WTO accession along with the U.S. extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China will help to guarantee that the U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and services providers will reap the full benefits of the historic U.S.-China bilateral WTO accession agreement. The United States also has benefited from the strong WTO dispute settlement process put in place as a result of the Uruguay Round Agreement. The United States has used the WTO dispute settlement process to ensure strong enforcement of U.S. rights under the WTO, as the United States has prevailed in 23 of the 25 U.S. WTO complaints acted on to date. It is important to note that while the WTO dispute settlement process is binding, compliance with WTO panel recommendations is voluntary. The WTO has no authority to force a member country to change its domestic laws or policies and therefore does not pose a threat to enforcement of U.S. health, safety, or environmental standards. In cases in which a WTO member chooses not to bring itself into conformity with a panel decision, the affected WTO member countries have the right to request compensation or to retaliate. Maintaining strong U.S. support and leadership in the WTO is critical to ensuring full enforcement and implementation of existing WTO agreements, and to carry on the work of the WTO ``built-in'' agenda, including the negotiations on agriculture and services. It is essential that the United States sustain its effort to continue trade liberalization in agriculture and services through the ongoing negotiations and to find ways to build a consensus among WTO members to expand liberalization negotiations to include other areas, such as industrial tariffs, trade facilitation, and transparency in government procurement, and to successfully complete the sectoral accelerated tariff liberalization and information technology ITA II negotiations. For the reasons outlined above, especially the benefits to the United States from the operation of the WTO over the last five years, ECAT member companies urge you to vote against H. Res. 90. Sincerely, Ernest S. Micek, Chairman, Cargill, Incorporated and Chairman, Emergency Committee for American Trade.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) quoted from a Congressional Research Service report and he indicated the U.S. sovereignty was imperiled through membership in WTO. As a member of the WTO the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules. Not quoted, however, in this quote from Congressional Research Service is the remainder of what was contained in that which states: However, the WTO cannot force members to adhere to their obligations. The United States and any other WTO member may act in its own national interest in spite of the WTO rules. The WTO even recognizes certain allowable exceptions such as national security. That is a direct quote from the Congressional Research Service World Trade Organization background and issues, August 25, 1999. Membership in the WTO is not a surrender of U.S. sovereignty but its wise exercise. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 528, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 90) withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, proponents of the WTO and our colleagues, especially the gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), have indicated that supporters of the resolution perpetuate the weakening of our clean air rules to implement a WTO-panel decision concerning cleaner burning gasoline. And reality is the issue before the WTO was discrimination against foreign gasoline producers, not the level of environmental protection. The regulations allowed U.S. refiners three ways in which to meet the standards while giving foreign refiners only one, a clear case of discrimination. In short, this discrimination gave an opportunity to the WTO dispute settlement panel to hear the case on the grounds of this discrimination and what their panel considered and what they concluded was the level of protection was never an issue rather the U.S., the panel determined, is free to regulate in order to obtain whatever air quality it wishes. We just cannot have that kind of discrimination between the two. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am not reading the letter.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 90, a resolution to withdraw congressional approval of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. The Committee on Ways and Means reported this resolution with an adverse recommendation by a vote of 35 to nothing. Put simply, the consensus in the committee was that it would be unthinkable and illogical for the United States to withdraw from the WTO. The WTO stands apart from many other international institutions in that it functions on a day-to-day basis almost completely in favor of American interests. In setting international rules for trade, the United States has had to make relatively few concessions in exchange for having open access to consumers in 136 other countries. The WTO system is fundamentally American-based rules of the road for commerce that limit discriminatory trade barriers and damaging sanctions. Because of the strength of U.S. leadership since World War II, our trading partners have been willing to accept the structure of fair trade rules and principles. Congress has been heavily involved in the development of these rules and principles since the establishment of the GATT in 1947. At the same time, the WTO cannot prevent the United States from establishing whatever level of food, safety, or environmental protection on imports that we see fit to impose. The WTO system of fair play only requires that we apply the same standards to both foreign and domestic producers. Since its inception in 1995, the WTO has functioned effectively, aiding our efforts to increase job-creating U.S. exports. The best engine for our impressive economic growth has been expanding international trade under the oversight of the WTO. Since 1995, exports have risen by $235 billion. When we increase exports, in particular, we are increasing the number of high-wage high- tech jobs in cities and towns across America. There is absolutely no better strategy for improving living standards than to pry away trade barriers and grow foreign markets for U.S. products. Nearly 12 million high-wage American jobs depend directly on our ability to export under predictable rules. Rules without a mechanism for enforcement would not mean much. The WTO dispute settlement system succeeds in encouraging the resolution of hundreds of trade conflicts through amicable consultations. In the 27 cases where the U.S. filed a formal challenge to foreign practices, we prevailed in 25. Our victories have won millions of dollars in increased sales for U.S. firms and workers. In establishing the WTO dispute settlement system, Congress insisted on a mechanism with moral authority, but with no power to compel a change in our laws or regulations. Any decision to comply with a WTO panel is solely an internal decision of the United States. In the difficult WTO case against U.S. Foreign Sales Corporations that we are struggling with now, neither the European Union nor the WTO can impose any course of action on the United States. As the world's leading exporter, the United States benefits enormously from the common sense ground rules of the WTO, such as national treatment, nondiscrimination, and due process. This is not a perfect organization by any stretch, but to pull out now would mean reverting to a dark time 60 years ago when international trade was governed by political whim and a dangerous absence of rules and fair practices. I urge a no vote on H.J. Res. 90. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 90.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard references made to jobs; we have heard references made to our trade deficits. The economic concerns involved in trade are important, but I think it is important for us to recognize that trade plays a critically important role in our economy today, and it is because we are less than 5 percent of the world's population and the market is beyond our borders and we have bountiful employment. We are at the biggest increases in gross domestic production that we have experienced in years. In fact, last year over $9.2 trillion was our GDP. I think it is important to recognize, too, the studies have already discovered that better than 90 percent of job dislocation here in the United States is totally unrelated to trade. When we then wonder about these increases in U.S. deficits, it is because of the insatiable appetites we have; and notwithstanding our incredible productivity, we cannot produce enough to meet the demands of the American consumers here at home. Let me conclude with a point, and this deals with the question of sovereignty. U.S. law which approved and implemented America's membership in the WTO makes clear that the U.S. reigns supreme. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, URAA, states, ``No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, namely, the WTO agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any of the United States law shall have effect.'' Secondly, ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to, one, the protection of human, animal or plant life or health; two, the protection of the environment; or, three, worker safety unless specifically provided for in this act of Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that all Members here recognize the importance of this vote. I know we have some honest disagreements. I hope that we can move some of our opponents in this debate through a presentation of facts and the evidence to a different position. But in the interim, I think it is vital that Members recognize that we must vote down H.J. Res. 90.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the letter to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) contains four pages of two-column names of businesses and associations that also very strongly object to H.J. Res. 90.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I submit a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled ``We're Not Executing the Innocent'' for insertion into the Record. There is a lot of misinformation being circulated about the death penalty and Professor Cassell does a good job of setting the record straight. We're Not Executing the Innocent (By Paul G. Cassell) On Monday avowed opponents of the death penalty caught the attention of Al Gore among others when they released a report purporting to demonstrate that the nation's capital punishment system is ``collapsing under the weight of its own mistakes.'' Contrary to the headlines written by some gullible editors, however, the report proves nothing of the sort. At one level, the report is a dog-bites-man story. It is well known that the Supreme Court has mandated a system of super due process for the death penalty. An obvious consequence of this extraordinary caution is that capital sentences are more likely to be reversed than lesser sentences are. The widely trumpeted statistic in the report-- the 68% ``error rate'' in capital cases--might accordingly be viewed as a reassuring sign of the judiciary's circumspection before imposing the ultimate sanction. Deceptive Factoids The 68% factoid, however, is quite deceptive. For starters, it has nothing to do with ``wrong man'' mistakes--that is, cases in which an innocent person is convicted for a murder he did not commit. Indeed, missing from the media coverage was the most critical statistic: After reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, the study's authors (like other researchers) were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed. Thus, the most important error rate--the rate of mistaken executions--is zero. What, then, does the 68% ``error rate'' mean? It turns out to include any reversal of a capital sentence at any stage by a appellate courts--even if those courts ultimately uphold the capital sentence. If an appellate court asks for additional findings from the trial court, the trial court complies, and the appellate court then affirms the capital sentence, the report finds not extraordinary due process but a mistake. Under such curious score keeping, the report can list 64 Florida postconviction cases as involving ``serious errors,'' even though more than one-third of these cases ultimately resulted in a reimposed death sentence, and in not one of the Florida cases did a court ultimately overturn the murder conviction. To add to this legerdemain, the study skews its sample with cases that are several decades old. The report skips the most recent five years of cases, with the study period ostensibly covering 1973 to 1995. Even within that period, the report includes only cases that have been completely reviewed by state appellate courts. Eschewing pending cases knocks out one-fifth of the cases originally decided within that period, leaving a residual skewed toward the 1980s and even the 1970s. During that period, the Supreme Court handed down a welter of decisions setting constitutional procedures for capital cases. In 1972 the court struck down all capital sentences in the country as involving too much discretion. When California, New York, North Carolina and other states responded with mandatory capital-punishment statutes, the court in 1976 struck these down as too rigid. The several hundred capital sentences invalidated as a result of these two cases inflate the report's error totals. These decades- old reversals have no relevance to contemporary death-penalty issues. Studies focusing on more recent trends, such as a 1995 analysis by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, found that reversal rates have declined sharply as the law has settled. The simplistic assumption underlying the report is that courts with the most reversals are the doing the best job of ``error detection.'' Yet courts can find errors where none exist. About half of the report's data on California's 87% ``error rate'' comes from the tenure of former Chief Justice Rose Bird, whose keen eye found grounds for reversing nearly every one of the dozens of capital appeals brought to her court in the 1970s and early 1980s. Voters in 1986 threw out Bird and two of her like-minded colleagues, who had reversed at least 18 California death sentences for a purportedly defective jury instruction that the California Supreme Court has since authoritatively approved The report also relies on newspaper articles and secondhand sources for factual assertions to an extent not ordinarily found in academic research. This approach produces some jarring mistakes. To cite one example, the study claims William Thompson's death sentence was set aside and a lesser sentence imposed. Not true. Thompson remains on death row in Florida today for beating Sally Ivester with a chain belt, ramming a chair leg and nightstick into her vagina and torturing her with lit cigarettes (among other depravities) before leaving her to bleed to death. These obvious flaws in the report have gone largely unreported. The report was distributed to selected print and broadcast media nearly a week in advance of Monday's embargo date. This gave ample time to orchestrate favorable media publicity, which conveniently broke 24 hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on capital- sentencing issues. The report continues what has thus far been a glaringly one-sided national discussion of the risk of error in capital cases. Astonishingly, this debate has arisen when, contrary to urban legend, there is no credible example of any innocent person executed in this country under the modern death- penalty system. On the other hand, innocent people undoubtedly have died because of our mistakes in failing to execute. Real Mistakes Collen Reed, among many others, deserves to be remembered in any discussion of our error rates. She was kidnapped raped tortured and finally murdered by Kenneth McDuff during the Christmas holidays in 1991. She would be alive today if McDuff had not narrowly escaped execution three times for two 1966 murders. His life was spared when the Supreme Court set aside death penalties in 1972, and he was paroled in 1989 because of prison overcrowding in Texas. After McDuff's release, Reed and at least eight other women died at his hands. Gov. George W. Bush approved McDuff's execution in 1998. While no study has precisely quantified the risk from mistakenly failing to execute justly convicted murderers, it is undisputed that we extend extraordinarily generosity to murderers. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the average sentence for murder and non-negligent manslaughter is less than six years. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that of 52,000 inmates serving time for homicide, more than 800 had previously been convicted of murder. That sounds like a system collapsing under the weight of its own mistakes--and innocent people dying as a result.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, deficit spending has run rampant for too long. The federal debt has ballooned to nearly $6 trillion. With this legislation for the first time since 1917 we are reversing this trend. Uncle Sam will actually begin to pay off our $6 trillion credit card bill. Paying off our huge debt should be a top priority, not an afterthought. Under current law, any money left over at the end of the year is used to reduce the debt. This bill makes debt reduction a priority by setting aside the money up front. Reducing the public debt is good for the country. It increases national saving and makes it more likely that the economy will continue growing strong. American families benefit through lower interest rates on mortgages and other loans, more jobs, better wages, and ultimately higher living standards. Reducing the public debt strengthens the government's fiscal position by reducing interest costs and promoting economic growth. This makes it easier for the government to afford its future budget obligations.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, deficit spending has run rampant for too long. The federal debt has ballooned to nearly $6 trillion. With this legislation for the first time since 1917 we are reversing this trend. Uncle Sam will actually begin to pay off our $6 trillion credit card bill. Paying off our huge debt should be a top priority, not an afterthought. Under current law, any money left over at the end of the year is used to reduce the debt. This bill makes debt reduction a priority by setting aside the money up front. Reducing the public debt is good for the country. It increases national saving and makes it more likely that the economy will continue growing strong. American families benefit through lower interest rates on mortgages and other loans, more jobs, better wages, and ultimately higher living standards. Reducing the public debt strengthens the government's fiscal position by reducing interest costs and promoting economic growth. This makes it easier for the government to afford its future budget obligations.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address an issue that we have been working on for almost five years. I am speaking about the funding question for the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico. As my colleagues may recall, in last year's Ticket to Work and Work Improvement Act tax bill, we included language that increased the amount of excise tax on rum covered over to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from $10.50 to $13.25. We have written statutory language that mandated one-sixth of the increase would be directed toward the endowment fund of the Conservation Trust. During the negotiations on the bill it was decided that this language would not be included when the government of Puerto Rico committed to transfer these funds to the Conservation Trust. I am pleased to say that the first payment has in fact been transferred to the Trust. This extension of the rum tax increase will last for thirty months. At that time we will have to revisit the question whether we have fulfilled our commitment to fully endow the Trust Fund. Recently we passed the Africa-CBI Trade bill and inserted language that will accelerate the payments of the rum tax cover over to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. I want to make sure that everyone clearly understands that this new legislation does not in any way undermine the intent of Congress in the previous tax bill. We expect the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico to continue getting one-sixth of the increase at the same time the government of Puerto Rico receives its payments and that those funds be segregated by the Trust into an account that is solely for the purpose of building up the endowment fund. These amounts are not to be used for normal operational expenses or for expenditures for new projects or acquisitions. I know that the Secretary of the Interior has prepared a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by himself and the Governor of Puerto Rico memorializing the commitments made to Congress in this matter. To my knowledge this document has not been signed at this date, and I urge the governor and the Secretary of the Interior to do so at their earliest opportunity.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). I deeply appreciate his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. CRANE. I now yield, Mr. Speaker, to our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Bilbray). I was going to say Australia.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. CRANE. I commend my distinguished colleague from California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks. In conclusion, I would simply like to pay tribute to our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) who are cosponsors of H.R. 8. It has had bipartisan cosponsorship from the outset, and I look forward to good, strong bipartisan support on Friday when we finally eliminate this obscene component of our Tax Code.